I never did consider myself a Royalist, but now I find I'm interested and curious as hell about the royal baby. According to the media, he was born yesterday (Monday 22nd July) at 16.24 BST. I was hoping he'd share my birthday, but he was three days out, so I'm pretty bummed about that.

Prince William is three years older than I am, but he can boast extraordinary longevity genes that I can't, so goodness knows whether I'll live to see this young prince become king. I'm confident of living through at least three monarchs, but maybe I can make it four. Still, no point thinking about that now, because it is years and years away - if, indeed, the Royal Family is still around in, say, seven decades' time.

There was a rumour that the Duchess of Cambridge let slip the gender of the baby - some silly woman thought she caught her about to say 'my daughter' - but the whole thing sounded very unlikely to me anyway. I think a lot of us were probably hoping for a girl, just because of the recent change to the law of succession. But really, the important thing is that the law is now in place - it's about time! And now, I'm sure we're all perfectly happy with another prince in direct line for the throne.

I say 'all', but naturally there will be anti-Royalists who don't care any more about the gender of this baby than any other they don't know personally. I understand and sympathise with them, as it happens. As I said, I never was much of a Royalist. I say this in the hope that this thread won't suddenly attract a bunch of people out looking for a political debate, but really, why should they come here?

Anyway, I'm dying to know what they'll call him. I've got my fingers crossed for Edward or Henry, so he can be a number IX, and it will no longer be a tie for most popular king name in this country.

The poor kid's only a day old, and already these are the kinds of things people are thinking about. I don't feel good about it, but nor can I help it.

I admit I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the day to day goings on of the Royal Family, but I don't adopt the oh-so-chic attitude of sneering disdain for all mention of them either. As an occasional amateur historian, it is fascinating to remember that we're talking about an institution that can trace its lineage back nearly an entire millennium.

I hope the kid has as happy and normal a life as he can being third in line for the throne of England. Considering the longevity that his family has shown, I doubt I'll live long enough to see him take the throne. Heck, as immortal as his Great Grandma is, I begin to doubt I'll live long enough to see Charles or William on the throne. Charles probably wonders the same thing.

What anyone names their baby is none of my business, but I confess, I'm a little bit disappointed with George. We've had some Georges fairly recently, the last being Elizabeth's II's father, of course. I was sort of hoping for - as I said - and Edward or Henry IX, or maybe a Stephen II (but not John, obviously - that name has been tainted for future kings for all time).

As my brother pointed out to me, he'll be George VIII if Charles actually decides to go with George VII and little George - who has no idea about any of this rubbish, poor kid - decides to use his first name. Because they don't have to. I happen to think they should. I can't be the only one who wants a Charles III instead of another boring old George, and then George VIII will be annoying, if I live to see it. Three front runners? No thank you!

King Alexander would be okay - a new name - but not Louis. There have been so many French kings with that name, it would just be so dumb.

No, really, I don't feel as strongly as all that.

That's some good history there, Fritz. 947 years is, indeed, almost an entire millennium. Of course, everyone knows that William I came over from Normandy, with his fellow Normans, and conquered England in 1066. I didn't even have to look that up (honest!). The crown was won in battle a few times since then, but always by someone with a claim of some sort - and in fact at least one new king married into the defeated royal family (Henry VII and Elizabeth of York) to strengthen his children's claim - so officially all monarchs are descended from Will I. There is apparently some very strong evidence that one king was actually some dude's love child, as his father was away for a long period that began before conception and ended after birth, but I can't remember which king that was and obviously we're not bothering to worry about it.

Okay, enough of my fun facts. You probably know more than me, Fritz - I can only spout information about the Battle of Hastings (i.e. the Norman Conquest) and the Tudors, and a little about the first three Stuarts. If it's anyone else, I have to consult a book (but I do have a good one!).

I'm not too worried about little George having a happy and normal childhood as far as he possibly can. William's generation are presenting themselves very much as human beings, with jobs and lives and stuff like that, and the public seems to like it. I'm sort of undermining my own point there, aren't I? But I mean it in a good way, honestly.

I have often been struck by, but never had cause to mention, the reference in EGB episode 'The Pied Piper of Manhattan' to Mayor McShane being sick on Prince Charles.

Garrett: What about that time you barfed all over the King of Wales?Kylie: Prince.Garrett: Whatever.

I can't be the only one who wants a Charles III instead of another boring old George, and then George VIII will be annoying, if I live to see it. Three front runners? No thank you!

I think Charles doesn't want to be Charles III for some understandable reasons--Charles I and II were the monarchs of a really bad time for the monarchy: namely, Charles I was the guy that Oliver Cromwell overthrew and executed, and Charles II didn't take the English throne (he was crowned by Scotland after his father's death) until after Cromwell kicked the bucket.

Some recent pictures of Prince George are all over the Yahoo.co.uk homepage at the moment. He is cute, like any baby of course, but really he is. He has the look of the royals already. I'm always reluctant to say that babies look like anyone before they've grown into their faces (everyone does it, by an illusion of hair colour or something, not worth getting annoyed about but I'm afraid I do) - but I've looked closely, and I'm sure it's coming.

The story is that a kangaroo rucksack little George has taken on a tour of Australia and New Zealand has subsequently sold out. Here's a link to the story, but what I just said is basically it. It is a nice thing - I'd probably have chosen it myself when I was a child. But not because Prince William or somebody had one! I still feel sorry for poor wee George. He has no idea that he has 'fans', and parents copying his 'style' for their kids! Fame isn't good for children.

Poor little Princess Charlotte! It seems no one is half as interested in her as they were in poor little Prince George. Hey, I get it - I'm a younger sibling too! So I just wanted to acknowledge her, tell her spirit in the ether congrats on being born, and get ready to be - in the words of great-aunt Princess Anne - 'considered too young' to do most of the things George is allowed to do (Anne tells us Charles was allowed to go to his mother's coronation, and she was considered too young - typical ).